the resource guidelines : supporting best practices and ... rg supporting best practices... · the...

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES:Supporting Best Practices and Building Foundations for Innovation in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

Looking Back and Moving Forward

Permanency Planning for Children Department National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Winter 2009

Permanency Planning for Children Department

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

2

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Supporting Best Practices and Building Foundations for Innovation in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

Authors

Lisa Portune, M.A., L.C.S.W NCJFCJ Consultant Sophia Gatowski, Ph.D. Permanency Planning for Children Department, NCJFCJ Shirley Dobbin, Ph.D. Permanency Planning for Children Department, NCJFCJ

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mary Mentaberry, Executive Director of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, as well as all of the Judges who shared their remembrances of the development of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ documents and the impacts those documents have made on dependency courts nationwide. The authors also wish to thank Cheryl Davidek, Director of Administration, Nancy Miller, Director of the Permanency Planning for Children Department (PPCD), and Elizabeth Whitney Barnes, Assistant Director, PPCD, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, for their thoughtful review and comments on this document.

This document is a publication of the Permanency Planning for Children Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges wishes to acknowledge that this material is made possible by Grant No. 2003-CT-BX-K003 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Reproduction of this publication for non-commercial education and information purposes is encouraged. Reproduction of any part of this publication must include the copyright notice and attribution: Portune, L., Gatowski, S.I., & Dobbin, S.A. (2008). “The RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Supporting Best Practices and Building a Foundation for Innovation in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases.” National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, Nevada.

© 2009, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. All Rights Reserved.

Mary V. Mentaberry, Executive Director National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Nancy Miller, Director Permanency Planning for Children Department National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges



3

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Supporting Best Practices and Building Foundations for Innovation in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 4

Chapter 2: The RESOURCE GUIDELINES 6

Chapter 3: Reflecting on the Development of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES 10

Chapter 4: Diffusion and Dissemination of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES 18

Chapter 5: Introduction and Consequences of RESOURCE GUIDELINES 24 Implementations in Model Court Sites

Chapter 6: RESOURCE GUIDELINES Support for Court Performance 28 Measurement

Chapter 7: Looking Ahead –How the RESOURCE GUIDELINES Continues to 32 Support Ongoing System Reform Initiatives & Improved System Outcomes

Chapter 8: Core Philosophy and Practice of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES to 36 Support Ongoing Future Reform Efforts – A Reminder



4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Over a three-year period in the early 1990s, the National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges (National Council) developed the

RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child

Abuse & Neglect Cases. Initially, the GUIDELINES document was

intended to provide judges with guidance on conducting effective

court hearings in child abuse and neglect cases – hearing

timeframes, the purpose of specific hearings, parties’ attendance at various

hearings, addressing issues at each hearing, and making thorough and

effective judicial findings. Since its publication in 1995 and dissemination to date,

the RESOURCE GUIDELINES has grown in its power of influence through the widespread

acceptance of what have become foundational judicial best practices in child abuse and

neglect cases, the recognition of the critical leadership role of the judge (both on- and

off-the-bench), the role of the court more broadly, and the need for systems-wide

collaboration to improve outcomes for abused and neglected children.

Judicial leadership is the cornerstone of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ principles –

both on-the-bench in individual cases and off-the-bench in the broader community.

Committed, knowledgeable judicial leaders are crucial to the success of best practice

and reform efforts. The driving RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ principle, on which all other

principles are based, is the need for judicial leadership to provide comprehensive and

timely judicial action in child abuse and neglect cases. Without this vitally important

cornerstone, best practice principles cannot be fully implemented and achieved. The

leadership of the judiciary is a crucial and necessary component in implementing reform

efforts that support the RESOURCE GUIDELINES.

Development of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES formally began in 1992 with funding from

the Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. The best practices and judicial role described in



5

the RESOURCE GUIDELINES ultimately developed through the extensive dialogue and

debate of Committee members, but it also evolved from prior years of judicial practice,

information-sharing, and outreach efforts among the National Council membership and

its leaders. Today, the best practices of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES are still a critical

component of ongoing reforms in child abuse and neglect cases across the nation – and

they continue to shape the future of ongoing legal and social reform efforts.

This document, which was developed from interviews with RESOURCE GUIDELINES

founders and review of relevant background materials, provides an overview of the

genesis of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES and, over the years, how it has been used (and

continues to be used) to support and guide court and systems reform across the nation.

Every child deserves a safe and permanent home in the shortest time possible.

- RESOURCE GUIDELINES



6

Chapter 2: The RESOURCE GUIDELINES

Beginning in 1992, with support from OJJDP, a multidisciplinary

National Council committee worked over a three-year period to

develop a judicial guide to best practices in the handling of child

abuse and neglect cases. The RESOURCE GUIDELINES,

published in 1995, details effective dependency court

hearing processes, provides options for improved practice,

and guides juvenile and family courts in assessing and implementing

improvements in the handling of child abuse and neglect cases. Once published,

the RESOURCE GUIDELINES was endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the

American Bar Association. In 2000, the RESOURCE GUIDELINES was supplemented with

the ADOPTION AND PERMANENCY GUIDELINES, which focused on best practices at the

later stages of the child abuse and neglect or dependency case process. The RESOURCE

GUIDELINES also served as a model for the development of the JUVENILE

DELINQUENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases

(2005) which outlines key principles for best practice in the juvenile delinquency court.

Upon publication in 1995, the RESOURCE GUIDELINES became foundational to the

training programs and efforts of the National Council, especially those of the

Permanency Planning for Children Department (PPCD). Initial judicial training programs

focused very specifically on judicial leadership and the role of the judge, as well as the

best practice recommendations of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES by each hearing type.

Training programs based on the RESOURCE GUIDELINES were conducted with small

groups of judges, in addition to large groups of judges in statewide and national training

programs and conferences. In many of the early training programs, judicial students

actively debated the appropriateness of the new, more active judicial role in child abuse

and neglect cases outlined in the GUIDELINES, as well as the appropriateness of the

recommended practice changes and expectations.



7

With the development of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES, the PPCD received further

funding from the OJJDP to support implementation of the best practices in specific

project sites, with an initial focus on training and outreach. The Child Victims Act Model

Courts Project (VAMC), funded through the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, began

with a small number of courts and a very specific focus on supporting the development

of judicial leadership, implementing court-based best practices from the RESOURCE

GUIDELINES, and building collaborative relationships between the court and the child

welfare agency. Today, while Model Courts continue to focus on the best practices of

the RESOURCE GUIDELINES as the foundational component of their reform efforts, the

range of system partners involved in collaborative efforts in each site has grown and

increasingly complex issues are being addressed. Lessons learned and reforms achieved

through Model Court efforts continue to be shared nationally and provide guidance on

how to implement and achieve RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ goals. The Model Court project

is discussed further in Chapter 4 and 5.

In the early days of training at local, regional, and national programs, the need for

substantive judicial training programs became obvious and the PPCD developed an

annual Child Abuse and Neglect Institute (CANI) that was designed to provide a week-

long, judge taught, judicial training program focused exclusively on the best practices of

the RESOURCE GUIDELINES and the role of the judge. The first week long program was

held in 1998 at the National Council headquarters in Reno, NV. Twenty judicial students

participated in the first Institute and all participants were funded to attend through an

OJJDP funded project.i By mid-2008, 385 judges from across the nation have

participated in CANI. Today, there continues to be a great deal of interest in CANI

training opportunities for judges, with most participants receiving state funding or

providing self-funding to participate. In recent years, components of the CANI

curriculum have been adapted to a CD version and made widely available for judicial

officers across the nation to access.ii Efforts are also underway at PPCD to create and

fund advanced CANI programs that address increasingly complex areas of practice.



8

Over the years, multiple entities and a variety of local, state, and national resources

have been used to support RESOURCE GUIDELINES based training programs, including

the national Court Improvement Project (CIP). Training areas have remained

foundational and, over the years, they have served as the core training component for a

wide range of judicial training programs that have expanded in scope. In implementing

training on the RESOURCE GUIDELINES, their relevance to other stakeholders beyond

the judge became apparent – today, the RESOURCE GUIDELINES has been incorporated

into many training programs for attorneys, social workers, child advocates, and other

child welfare system stakeholders.

In addition to training and outreach, upon publication in 1995, a copy of the RESOURCE

GUIDELINES was sent to every Congressperson, with the hope of convincing them that

appropriating funding solely to the child welfare system was not going to achieve the

systems’ changes and improved outcomes for children and families that were sorely

needed. It was argued that formally including the court in reform efforts and

empowering the court to have a supervisory role over all parties would result in greater

accountability within the system and improve outcomes for abused and neglected

children and their families. Over the years, political support for the implementation of

the RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ best practices has grown significantly, at both the state

and national levels, and across political parties.

In recent years, through Congressional funding of the CIP and the Violence Against

Women Act (VAWA), as well as through a variety of outreach efforts, there is an

increasing amount of visible commitment and leadership at the statewide level for

reform efforts – Chief Justices, Governors, and other state leaders are becoming

increasingly and actively involved in child welfare reform efforts and they are working

closely with their juvenile and family court judges to ensure implementation and

assessment of those reform efforts and associated outcomes. With increasing leadership

and involvement of Chief Justices, states across the country are working hard to

implement RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ best practices throughout their state.iii



9



10

Chapter 3: Reflecting on the Development of theRESOURCE GUIDELINES

The first juvenile court was established in 1899 in Chicago, Illinois.

Created by the Illinois Legislature with the “intention of creating a

statewide special court with unique jurisdiction over pre-delinquent

and delinquent youth … the court was created to extend protection

to troubled children in general, including those who are abused,

neglected, dependent or in need of supervision.”iv By 1907, 26 states

and the District of Columbia had created juvenile courts and passed laws specific to

juveniles.

In 1935, the Social Security Act authorized the first federal grant for child welfare

services and provided small grants as a starting point for states to begin to establish

child welfare agencies that would deliver such services. The Act also created the Aid to

Dependent Children program which made funding available to states to provide financial

assistance to children whose fathers were absent; such children were defined as

“dependent.”

In 1937, the Association of Juvenile Court Judges of America, which was

ultimately renamed the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,

was founded; it was the first national judicial membership organization in the

United States. Judge Harry L. Eastman from Cleveland, Ohio had spearheaded efforts

to create a national organization of juvenile court judges and was elected as its initial

President. He served as the President of the National Council for four years. Since its

inception, 64 judges have been elected to serve as President of the National Council.

During the 1940s, the Association of Juvenile Court Judges of America was recognized

as an important and influential national organization that urged the U.S. Senate to

address issues for delinquent children and provided educational programs for system

professionals. In 1944, the organization was officially renamed the National Council of



11

Juvenile Court Judges. In 1949, National Council President Judge Gustav L. Schramm of

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, formally established training programs for juvenile and family

court judges and other court-related personnel as a core purpose of the Council.

In 1950, National Council member Judge Walter H. Beckham from Miami, Florida was

part of a national team developing the first White House Conference on Children and

Youth (December 19, 1950). Conference participants considered methods to strengthen

juvenile courts, as well as a variety of specific areas aimed at improving systems’

responses and child outcomes.

In the early 1960s, the Social Security Act was amended several times. The 1961

amendment was created so that “Children Service Agencies” would provide appropriate

services to make the home suitable, or to move the child to a suitable placement while

continuing to provide financial support on behalf of the child. As a result, child welfare

caseloads increased, as did the need for more services for more children. In 1962,

amendments to the Social Security Act emphasized the importance of service delivery to

children whose homes were unfit. For the first time, state agencies were to report

to the court system those families whose children were identified as possibly

needing to be removed from their home. Courts became an entity in the child

welfare system, but carried little authority in directing service delivery from

the child welfare system. In reaction, the National Council continued

outreach and training efforts to increase the authority, oversight, and

leadership role of the court in child abuse and neglect cases.

In 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (P.L. 93-247, CAPTA) was

passed, becoming the first piece of major federal legislation specifically addressing child

abuse and neglect cases. Through CAPTA, federal funding was attached to child abuse

prevention and treatment and all states were required to create child abuse reporting

procedures and investigation systems. State implementation of mandatory reporting

laws resulted in a rapid increase in the number of children who were removed



12

In 1977, the National Council was renamed the National Council ofJuvenile and Family CourtJudges in recognition of the increasing need to address familyissues.

from their homes and placed in foster care. It also resulted in increased

caseloads for juvenile and family court judges.

In 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (P.L. 95-608; ICWA) was enacted due to the ever-

increasing number of Native American children being placed outside of their Native

American communities. Under ICWA, minimum Federal standards were established for

the removal of Indian children from their homes and for the placement of Indian

children in homes that reflect the values of Indian culture. Tribes were also given the

right to intervene in state court proceedings.

In the 1970s, with OJJDP funding, the National Council was awarded an initial contract

to support starting the National Court Appointed Special Advocates Association

(NCASAA). The National Council formed the Children in Placement Committee

which developed the Judicial Review of Children in Placement Benchbook

and, ultimately, the national CASA program. Aware of Seattle Superior Court

Judge David Soukup’s CASA-type program held in his courtroom, the Committee built on

his model in developing a program that ultimately became the national CASA program.

States across the country joined the movement toward providing better representation

for abused and neglected children through the development of local CASA programs. In

1990, the Victims of Child Abuse Act (P.L. 101-647) authorized funding for national

CASA to award grants to states and local CASA programs in order to expand CASA

advocacy. The number of CASA volunteers increased, making them available to more

children involved in the court system due to abuse or neglect, and allowing the

volunteer child advocate to represent the best interest of the child in court. Today, the

National Council continues to support CASA programs at local, state, and national levels

and has included CASA volunteers in multi-disciplinary training programs, court reform

initiatives, outreach activities, and systems

reform efforts. The leadership of the National

CASA Program continues to work with the

National Council and PPCD to support and

expand CASA efforts in collaborative reform



13

issues. The President of the National Council serves as an Ex-Officio member on the

Board of the National CASA.

Throughout the 1970s, there was an increasing concern about the number of children

being removed from home and spending extended time in foster care. The Adoption

Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272) was created to address increased

concerns over the number of children being removed from their home, a practice of

“foster care drift,” and the lack of oversight within the foster care system. The Act

established the first federal procedural rules governing child welfare case management,

permanency planning, and foster care placement reviews, and required states to

develop a state plan detailing how child welfare services will be delivered. The

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act also created the first significant

role for the court system by requiring courts to review child welfare cases on

a regular basis. The court or an administrative body was required to

determine the children’s future status – whether it is return to parents,

adoption, or continued foster care – within 18 months after initial placement

into foster care.

In order to help states take full advantage of P.L.

96-272, and effectively implement permanency

planning for children, the National Council

initially obtained support from the Edna

McConnell Clark Foundation to provide training

and technical assistance. Five states were

targeted for initial project efforts. Among

achievements in these five target states were increased judicial review, court/social

service agency cooperation on behalf of children, and expanded services for victims of

abuse and neglect – essential to these achievements was the leadership of juvenile and

family court judges and other child welfare professionals. Particularly successful in the

National Council’s initial permanency planning efforts were leaders in Missouri, who had

established a State Permanency Planning Task Force which included trial and

Permanency Planning – efforts to ensure that abused and neglected children are not unnecessarily placed in foster care, do not drift from foster home to foster home, but instead are provided with a permanent living situation as quickly as possible.



14

appellate court judges, social service professionals, representatives of volunteer

organizations, and legislators. Task Force activities focused on identification of barriers

to permanency planning for abused and neglected children in the state, and

interdisciplinary training to help professionals recognize and eliminate those barriers. In

1983, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided support to the

National Council to replicate the “Missouri Model” in three additional states. Recognizing

the relationship between child abuse and later delinquency, in 1984 OJJDP also provided

support for the National Council’s Permanency Planning for Children Project.

This Project established Permanency Planning Task Forces based on the Missouri Model

in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The National Council provided

individualized technical assistance to the Task Forces, and served as a national

clearinghouse for permanency planning progress within the states.v The National

Council’s Permanency Planning Task Forces served as precursors to the development of

the national state Court Improvement Project (CIP).

In response to the increasing oversight role of the courts, the National Council also

produced two publications in the 1980s that included specific recommendations and

standards for the practice of judges. Both documents also demonstrated the value and

impact of developing such publications. In 1984, the Juvenile Court and Serious

Offenders: 38 Recommendationsvi publication focused on two controversial issues: (1)

Bind-overs or transferring children who had committed crimes that were especially

serious; and (2) Punishment for the crime to include both a penalty and services to the

child to help advance good behavior. The publication proved beneficial to judges, as well

as to State legislators, county officials, and community leaders, in addressing serious

youth crime and its perpetrators more effectively. The Recommendations also

State Permanency Planning Task Forces and subcommittee members in the 50 States and D.C. met on an estimated 300 occasions, planning and implementing an estimated 100 training conferences and seminars. More than 9,550 judges, legislators, social service workers and administrators, citizen volunteers, attorneys and others participated in these trainings. This interdisciplinary approach to permanency planning resulted in increased interagency cooperation and significant improvements in the delivery of services to abused and neglectedchildren.



15

highlighted consensus among judges in jurisdictions of various size and structure on

how to handle serious offender cases. This publication served as a model to illustrate

how the National Council could develop recommendations that would serve

as a foundation to address common issues and challenges, and to develop

best practices. The Juvenile Court and Serious Offenders publication also served as a

model for a future publication focused specifically on recommendations for child abuse

and neglect cases.

Building on the Juvenile Court and Serious Offenders publication, the National Council’s

Metropolitan Court Judges Committee, comprised of judges from the nation’s largest

cities, engaged in a process of dialogue and debate, establishing 73 recommendations to

better address the needs of abused and neglected children across the nation – Deprived

Children: A Judicial Response, 73 Recommendations.vii The recommendations redefined

the role of judges, moving from adjudicators to leaders of systems change

and served as a catalyst to move the court into the position of problem-

solving or treatment courts. The publication highlighted the agreement and

alignment of juvenile and family court judges, from jurisdictions across the nation of

various size and structure, about how to best address cases involving child abuse and

neglect.

In the early 1990s, several National Council articles were published that outlined and

strengthened the role of the judge and improved court practice. In 1992, National

Council member and future National Council President, Judge Leonard Edwards, wrote

“The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge.” viii The article outlined the

unique leadership role of the juvenile court judge – a role that combines “…judicial,

administrative, collaborative and advocacy components,” ix and acknowledged the need

to educate and socialize juvenile court judges to their “nontraditional,” distinct role.

During the 1990s, the American Bar Association (ABA) also published reports on reform

efforts in two juvenile courts led by National Council judicial leaders. Judicial

Implementation of Permanency Planning Reform: One Court that Works (1992)x



16

highlighted reforms in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (Cincinnati, Ohio), led by then

National Council Executive Officer and soon-to-be President Judge David E. Grossmann.

This publication discussed how the juvenile court implemented change in order to more

effectively manage the new demands placed upon it through major foster care reform

legislation and state law reform initiatives. The publication outlined the key elements of

reform and noted that Hamilton County’s court experience could be replicated in other

jurisdictions. The report provided a blue print for reform in juvenile and family courts

and it spoke to the importance of judicial leadership, effective case flow management,

collaboration, as well as other necessary components for change.

As a follow-up to the publication on Hamilton County, the ABA chronicled permanency

planning reform efforts and practices in the Kent County Juvenile Court (Grand Rapids,

Michigan), led by National Council member and former President Judge John P.

Steketee.xi Many of the same key elements and reform efforts that were found in Kent

County were consistent with reform efforts in Hamilton County, supporting the belief

that core reforms and best practices are needed in all juvenile and family courts to

achieve significant and lasting reform – most notably, strong judicial oversight, effective

case flow management, and system collaboration.

The national Court Improvement Program was created as part of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66), making funds available in the form of

grants to state court systems, for states to conduct assessments of their foster

care and adoption laws, to assess judicial processes, and to develop and

implement a plan for system improvement that included the courts. In many

ways, the State Permanency Planning Task Forces were precursors to the State Court

Improvement Program.

Building on the efforts underway through the leadership and members of the National

Council, as well as national efforts underway to improve practice by allied organizations

(e.g., the American Bar Association) and federal entities, including the Court

Improvement Program, the National Council formally began to develop the RESOURCE



17

GUIDELINES in 1992, with publication in 1995. As discussed, the primary focus of the

RESOURCE GUIDELINES was judicial leadership, on- and off-the-bench, and the

development and articulation of best practices in the handling of child abuse and neglect

cases. Since its publication, the RESOURCE GUIDELINES has had a very strong and

meaningful impact on dependency court practice and child welfare reform.

More than 33,000 copies distributed nationwide since first published in 1995

More than 16,000 copies distributed nationwide since first published in 2000



18

Chapter 4: Diffusion and Dissemination of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES – Key Events

As dissemination of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES began, the National

Council engaged in congressional testimony in support of new federal

legislation.xii Under the leadership of Judge David Grossmann from

Cincinnati, Ohio, National Council judges integral to the development

of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES testified that federal legislative

changes concerning expedited permanency decisions, performance

standards, child safety, permanency, and child well-being needed to be paramount in

any child welfare decision. Passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997

(P.L. 105-89; ASFA) reflects the significant role that the judiciary played in

helping to shape the needed legislation.

ASFA mandates that child safety, permanency, and well-being are of paramount concern

in any child welfare decision. ASFA set new time frames for permanency hearings,

reducing the time frame from 18 months from placement to 12 months from the date

the child entered care, establishing new time lines and conditions for filing termination

of parental rights, and requiring states to document efforts to adopt and address

adoption barriers. ASFA established performance standards and a state accountability

system and encouraged states to test innovative approaches to delivering child welfare

services. With the passage of the ASFA, the PPCD focused on training programs that

built upon the RESOURCE GUIDELINES, but also included ASFA provisions, and

emerging issues and practices based on a growing knowledge base resulting from years

of RESOURCE GUIDELINES implementation.

The Child Victims Act Model Court Project

Building on the work underway as the RESOURCE GUIDELINES was being developed,

and based on the reforms underway in the Hamilton County (Cincinnati, Ohio) Juvenile

Court, the National Council launched its national Model Court Project. Funded by the



19

OJJDP, the Model Courts Project was, and continues to be, designed to support and

guide reform efforts based on the best practices of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES.

Beginning with Cincinnati in 1993, by the implementation of ASFA in 1997, the Model

Courts Project had expanded to include 12 diverse

jurisdictions: Alexandria, Virginia; Chicago, Illinois; El Paso,

Texas; Honolulu, Hawaii; Louisville, Kentucky; Miami,

Florida; Nashville, Tennessee; Newark, New Jersey; Reno,

Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; San Jose, California; and

Tucson, Arizona. Today, there are 36 courts participating

in the Model Courts Project – implementing the RESOURCE

GUIDELINES and reforming their child abuse and neglect

systems to improve outcomes for children and families.

The Model Courts represent juvenile and family courts

from across the nation, differing in size, procedures,

resources, and outcomes. Working with the PPCD and with

each other, Model Courts begin with an assessment

of judicial roles and foundational court practice in

child abuse and neglect cases as articulated in the

RESOURCE GUIDELINES. The Model Courts identify

impediments to the timeliness of court events and delivery

of services for children and families in care, and then work

with system partners to design and implement court- and

agency-based practice and policy changes to address

these barriers. Working with the PPCD, the Model Courts

provide training programs to their judiciary and other

professionals to ensure an understanding of effective

leadership, as well as educational training programs on

foundational practice issues and emerging challenges.

Model Courts

Alexandria, Virginia Austin, Texas Baltimore, Maryland Charlotte, North Carolina Chicago, Illinois Cincinnati, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio Concord, New Hampshire Dallas, Georgia Des Moines, Iowa El Paso, Texas Greeley, Colorado Hattiesburg, Mississippi Honolulu, Hawaii Howell, Michigan Indianapolis, Indiana La Plata, Maryland Lake Charles, Louisiana Las Vegas, Nevada Los Angeles, California Louisville, Kentucky Miami, Florida Nashville, Tennessee Newark, New Jersey New Orleans, Louisiana New York City, New York Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Reno, Nevada Salt Lake City, Utah San Jose, California Seattle, Washington Toledo, Ohio Tucson, Arizona Washington, D.C.

Regional/Statewide Model Courts:Colorado New York



20

With technical assistance and training from the PPCD, child abuse and neglect practices

and innovations are pilot-tested and refined as part of ongoing court and multi-agency

systems’ change efforts.

Model Courts are continually engaging in active reform efforts. Believing that it is in a

child’s best interest to be raised in a safe, permanent, and loving family, the

Model Courts have rejected “business as usual.” Instead, the Model Courts bring

together a broad range of system stakeholders to critically review how well the court

and system structures and processes are meeting the needs of these most vulnerable

children. Stakeholders engage in a collaborative strategic planning process – assessing

system functioning; targeting specific, attainable goals; implementing and evaluating

reforms; and supporting ongoing efforts to achieve substantive, sustainable change. As

they implement and assess reform efforts at the local level, Model Courts increasingly

use their experiences, successes, and lessons learned to support statewide reform

efforts. Working closely with the Model Courts, the PPCD facilitates the reform process

at both the local and state level, and links the efforts of the Model Courts to other

national reform efforts. (See Chapter 5 for further information about the Model Courts

and their RESOURCE GUIDELINES implementation.)

In 1999, the National Council’s Millennium Conference, “Launching Improved Court

Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect into the Next Century,” was held in Washington,

D.C. This Conference brought together judge-led teams from each state, and focused on

the fundamental best practices of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES, as well as the

accomplishments and lessons learned from the Model Court jurisdictions. The

Conference provided opportunities for information-sharing, brainstorming, and outreach

amongst Model Courts and courts across the nation. The design and development of the

Millennium Conference also served as a model for the development of the National

Judicial Leadership Summit on the Protection of Children.

In 2000, a live national satellite broadcast entitled “Model Court Practices in Abuse and

Neglect Cases” was produced by OJJDP, in cooperation with the National Council and



21

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. The broadcast

highlighted RESOURCE GUIDELINES implementation and reform efforts in the Louisville,

Newark, and El Paso Model Courts and provided opportunities for broadcast participants

to raise questions and discuss challenges of systems’ reform with the Model Court Lead

Judges.

In September 2005, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court

Administrators, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and the National Council,

along with chief justices, appellate jurists, juvenile and family court judges, court

improvement project directors, child welfare professionals, legal practitioners, and

legislators joined together for the National Judicial Leadership Summit on the Protection

of Children entitled “Justice for Children: Changing Lives by Changing Systems” in

Bloomington, Minnesota. This National Judicial Leadership Summit represented a unique

and significant convening of national and state leaders whose sole focus was to discuss

RESOURCE GUIDELINES best practices strategies and develop meaningful action plans

designed to improve outcomes for the nation’s most vulnerable children. In March 2007,

a second Summit was held in New York City. Again, the National Council collaborated

with the NCSC to develop the National Judicial Leadership Summit.

Expanding the RESOURCE GUIDELINES, in 2000 the National Council published the

ADOPTION AND PERMANENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Developed as a result of a three-year effort to

produce best practice recommendations for use in dependency cases in which the

abused or neglected child cannot be reunified with their parents, it provides juvenile and

family court judges with guidance on how to hold meaningful hearings from the

permanency hearing through subsequent termination of parental rights hearings and

final case closure.

Since the late 1990s, the PPCD has partnered with Model Courts, Court Improvement

Program representatives, and other system experts to produce publications that

highlight achievements and best practices, mistakes made and lessons learned from



22

RESOURCE GUIDELINES implementation, and outcomes of reform. Over the years,

these publications have been shared with thousands of court and agency

representatives who are actively engaged in reform initiatives and many have been

incorporated into training programs. The development of such articles and technical

assistance reports continues today, and a wide range of technical assistance materials

are made available through the PPCD and the National Council’s website

(www.ncjfcj.org).



23



24

Chapter 5: Introduction and Consequences of RESOURCE GUIDELINES Implementations in Model Court Sites

The Child Victims Act Model Courts are committed to implementing

the best practice recommendations outlined in the RESOURCE

GUIDELINES in order to achieve better outcomes for the children and

families they serve. Model Courts engage court and other system

stakeholders in collaborative efforts to critically examine policies,

practices and procedures and to design targeted reform initiatives –

Model Courts serve as laboratories for systems’ change in child abuse and neglect cases.

WHAT PRACTICE IMPROVEMENTS WERE PIONEERED BY THE MODEL COURTS?xiii

• Establishment of cross-system collaborative groups in each court guided by a Model

Court Lead Judge.

! Establishment of one family-one judge calendaring.

• Substantive and thorough child abuse and neglect hearings.

! Front-loading of child abuse and neglect cases (e.g., substantive preliminary

protective hearings; early appointment of counsel for parents and children; pre-

hearing and pre-trial conferencing; early alternative dispute resolution; early identify

of services to children and families).

• Scheduling hearings at a specific time (“time certain”).

• Implementation of strict no-continuance policies.

• Copies of orders disseminated to all parties at the end of each hearing.

• Setting the date and time of the next hearing at the end of the current hearing.

• Development of “dedicated” attorneys assigned to specific courtrooms and

specific judges.

• Improved advocacy for children and representation for parents.



25

• Development of data information systems specifically focused on dependency

case processing and performance measurement.

• Development and implementation of family group decision-making and

dependency mediation programs.

! Improved adoption practices and “Adoption Saturday” celebrations.

! Dependency drug treatment courts.

! Dependency mental health courts.

! Use of judicial checklists focused on improving educational outcomes, children’s

exposure to violence, infant and child mental health, and the Indian Child

Welfare Act.

WHAT IMPROVED OUTCOMES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MODEL COURTS?xiv

• In the District of Columbia, the Model Court collaboration between two organizations

that provide CASA services led to increased numbers of children being served and

represented.

• In Tucson, the average number of months a case remained open was 23.2 months

in 2008- down from 39 months a decade ago, along with a 33 % decrease in the

number of dependent youth growing up in foster care.

• In New York City, the number of children in foster care in 2008 (16,982) is down

from an estimated 42,000 children in care a decade ago. Over half of these children

are teenagers. With the implementation of “Teen Days” in 4 of the 5 boroughs,

these youth are participating more in court.

• In Des Moines, due to the efforts of the Model Court, best practices in supporting

visitation have been utilized in child welfare cases statewide. The Iowa Code has

adopted Parent Child visitation guidelines developed by the Des Moines Model Court

for all courts to follow.

• In Chicago, the backlog of children under court jurisdiction in out-of-home, long-

term foster care was reduced from an estimated 58,000 to fewer than 20,000 during

1996-1999. The number in 2008 is fewer than 8,000 children.



26

• In Los Angeles, the leadership of the Model Court Lead Judge and team resulted in

significant improvements in achieving permanency for children through the Adoption

Saturday program, which has since become a national model. More than 3,000

children found permanent homes in 2000.

• In San Jose, the adoption rate doubled. San Jose also created one of the first child

welfare mediation and family group conferencing programs in the United States; the

San Jose program is now a nationally recognized model and is an expected part of

best practices.

WHAT COMMITMENT IS REQUIRED OF A MODEL COURT?

Becoming a Model Court requires a unique commitment of energy, time, and personnel.

All prospective jurisdictions are asked to follow seven fundamental elements in order to

become part of the project:

• Identify a Lead Judge to guide the process with the support of the Presiding Judge

or Chief Justice in his or her jurisdiction or state.

• Establish a collaborative with key stakeholders who work within the system.

• Assess court practice and identify challenges, goals, and improvements based upon

best practices.

• Agree to serve as a “laboratory” for systems change by implementing new practices

and sharing experiences with others.

• Open the court process to PPCD staff, evaluators, and others.

• Track measurable outcomes through a data information system or by other means.

• Agree to mentor other jurisdictions by hosting site visits, serving as presenters at

state, regional, and national conferences, and developing publications.

Becoming a Model Court is a long-term commitment. Systemic improvement is a multi-

year, multi-phase, multi-systems change process that evolves through leadership,

legislation, policy, and personnel. Working closely with each other and with the PPCD,

the Model Courts continually assess their child abuse and neglect case processing,

examine barriers to timely permanency, develop and institute court improvement plans,



27

and collaborate within their jurisdictions to bring about meaningful and sustainable

systems change.

All Model Courts are engaged in developing new policies, practices, and programs which

will not only speed cases to permanency, but also provide high-quality attention and

services to children that focus on the safety, permanency, and well-being of the children

in care. Each Model Court is committed to taking a hard look at how its court process is

working in everyday practice.

Model Court has given me the opportunity to come together with a group of committed and dedicated people to share frustration and to learn. It provides an opportunity to test ideas and get meaningful feedback … it provides a source of support and numerous resources that can assist in problem-solving and developing new ideas and programs. - Lead Judge Ernestine Gray, New Orleans, LA

The Model Court offers its participants an opportunity to creatively and energetically come to the table and contribute ideas about ways to improve service to children and families. The spirited discussions that ensue, and the resulting innovations, nurture and sustain us all! - Lead Judge Sallyanne Floria, Newark, NJ

Model Courts are not exemplary courts, but are laboratory courts, using trial and error, creativity, and ongoing evaluation to come up with enhancements and improvement of best practices. They are willing to try new things to improve outcomes for children. - Deputy Lead Judge Oscar G. Galbadon, Jr., El Paso, TX

Being a Model Court takes best practices off the pages of books and breathes life into them. - Lead Judge Louis A. Trosch, Jr., Charlotte, NC



28

Chapter 6: RESOURCE GUIDELINES Support for Court Performance Measurement

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES was ahead of its time with the

recommendation for courts to gather their own performance and

outcome data. The GUIDELINES stressed how important it

is for courts to have their own data to track such things as:

length of time from case filing to case closure; length of time for

key steps in the legal process (e.g., case filing to adjudication,

disposition, and the permanency hearing); and length of time

from filing the termination of parental rights petition to the finalization of adoption.

While measurement focused on timeliness, the RESOURCE GUIDELINES strongly

advised courts to measure progress in case flow management and to measure

all aspects of their performance from the time a petition is filed until final

permanency and all steps and events in-between.

In the early years following the dissemination of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES, most of

the courts, including Model Courts, had very little, if any, ability to track case time

frames and outcomes. Due to a lack of data resources and technology across the nation,

courts tended to rely on their local or state child protection agency to provide at least

some information regarding the timeliness of court events and other data outcomes.

Courts cannot, however, hold themselves accountable by relying on someone else’s data

to examine their own performance. In recent years, there has been a growing

focus on court performance measurement.

Through collaborative efforts with the American Bar Association, Center on Children and

the Law, and the National Center for State Courts, the National Council has encouraged

courts to develop their own data capacity in child abuse and neglect cases. In 1998, a

mini-conference was co-sponsored by the Court Improvement Conference and the

Conference of State Court Administrators’



29

Court Statistics Project Advisory Committee. Participants worked with a number of

resource documents, including the RESOURCE GUIDELINES, to summarize key

performance measures for dependency courts in a consensus statement. Those

measures where then revised in an article by Dr. Victor E. Flango from the National

Center of State Courts, entitled “Measuring Progress in Improving Court Processing of

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases,” published in 2001,xv and then further refined through a

multi-year collaborative project funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation –

resulting in the identification of national court performance measures for child abuse

and neglect cases. The measures fall into four primary categories – safety, permanency,

due process, and timeliness, and were outlined in a 2004 publication entitled “Building a

Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases.”xvi

After publishing Building a Better Court, the Children’s Bureau funded the collaborative

partners (the ABA, NCSC, and the National Council) to provide targeted technical

assistance to six diverse project sites: Charlotte, North Carolina; Clackamas County,

Oregon; Little Rock, Arkansas; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New Orleans, Louisiana; and

Omaha, Nebraska. During this project, the partnering organizations were able to test

sites’ capacity for producing data on each of the court performance measures, and, as a

result, further refine the measures themselves.

With passage of the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Court Act, SANCA, (P.L. 106-314)

in 2000, and with funding from the OJJDP, the National Council partnered with the NCSC

and the ABA to provide collaborative court performance measurement technical

assistance to an additional six states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, New Jersey,

Virginia). These states created management information systems, or expanded their

existing systems, to collect data concerning the national dependency court performance

measures.

All of the aforementioned work has culminated in the production of the Toolkit for Court

Performance Measurement in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, which is informed by the



30

early Packard-funded project, the work of the Children’s Bureau and the SANCA project

sites. The Toolkit publications are jointly funded by the Children’s Bureau and OJJDP.

Information on both projects and the national dependency court performance measures

can be obtained at www.courtsandchildren.org. The Toolkit is also available at

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov.

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ principles stress the importance of data and

court performance measurements. Courts, like child welfare agencies, must

focus not only on timeliness of case processing and decision-making, but also

on the quality of the process and the outcomes resulting from the court’s

efforts. Consistent with the focus for reform efforts, courts must also be able

to share their independent system data with their child welfare agency and

other system partners.



31



32

Chapter 7: Looking Ahead – How the RESOURCE GUIDELINES Continues to Support Ongoing System Reform Initiatives and Improved System Outcomes

Since its publication in 1995, the RESOURCE GUIDELINES has

been a critical guide to court and system reform efforts. Today,

the RESOURCE GUIDELINES is still foundational to court-

based best practices and reform efforts, and to broader

system reform initiatives.

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES continues to maintain a focus on foundational best

practices for each hearing type in child abuse and neglect cases, and on the legal,

practice-oriented, leadership role of judges’ on-the-bench in individual cases. The

appropriate focus and quality of court hearings, and the appropriate role of

the judge in individual cases, is a critical and necessary component for

ongoing judicial training – whether conducted by local or state-based judicial

training experts and state Court Improvement Programs, through national

conferences and training programs, or by the National Council.

In addition to foundational training programs focused on the judicial role on-the-bench,

National Council training programs have also focused on the off-the-bench

leadership role of judges. Over the years, the off-the-bench leadership focus of

National Council training programs has been on developing judicial leadership skills that

facilitate effective multi-disciplinary reform efforts and community outreach. Today, with

the increasing leadership role of judges in collaborative efforts at the local, state, and

national levels, PPCD training programs are becoming increasingly focused on leadership

development. These emerging training programs combine the research and theory of

effective leadership generally, with the research, theory, and practice of effective judicial

leadership in the dependency context.xvii



33

In addition to training programs specifically designed for judicial students, the National

Council has worked with local, state, and national organizations to develop and provide

multi-disciplinary training programs on a wide range of topic areas.

Today, training programs are addressing

increasingly complex issues. Emerging

training areas also require outreach to new

faculty who may have the expertise in specific

topics, but do not necessarily have the

expertise in how to translate the material to

the specifics of dependency cases and the

role of the judge. This requires new

partnerships between experts and system

professionals in how increasingly complex

information is presented in a relevant and

useable way. In several topic areas, the

National Council has supported training

programs that include a faculty partnership

between a judge and a scientist or other

appropriate expert.

Building on foundational best practice and

training programs, the RESOURCE

GUIDELINES has also proved to be a

critical component of effective

collaborative efforts with child welfare

agencies and other system professionals. Reinforcing and expanding collaborative

efforts at the local, state, and national level is an ongoing critical process.

As discussed, in recent years there has been an increasing focus on court performance

measures in four primary categories – safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness.

Sampling of General Topic Areas of Multi-Disciplinary Training Programs

RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ Best Practices Child Abuse and Neglect Legal Process &

Requirements Leadership Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs System-wide Professional Roles and

Responsibilities Successful Collaboration and Systems

ChangeChild and Adolescent Development Biological Development Psychological Development Social Development Mental Health – Children, Adolescents,

Parents Children’s Exposure to Violence Forensic Evidence in Child Abuse and Neglect

Cases Improving Educational Outcomes Substance Abuse and Treatment Dependency Drug Court Cultural Competence Reducing Racial Disproportionalities and

DisparitiesIndian Child Welfare Act Interstate Compact for the Placement of

ChildrenPerformance Measurement Case Flow Management Model Court Reform Efforts and Innovative

Programs



34

Model Court jurisdictions, as well as courts across the nation, are working hard to

increase the ability of the court to collect and track the necessary data, including data

that can assess the effectiveness of RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ best practice

implementation. Many courts are also working with their child welfare agency to develop

opportunities for appropriate data sharing between the court and the agency.

With the increasing focus on data, there is an essential need to conduct research-based

evaluations of court practice and outcomes (including the best practices of the

RESOURCE GUIDELINES) as well as practice and outcomes throughout the dependency

court system. There needs to be increasing outreach and partnerships with local

universities and colleges to support these research efforts.

Clearly the RESOURCE GUIDELINES continue to be a vital tool in child abuse and neglect

courts’ system change efforts. In order to ensure their ongoing relevance, and to ensure

that the RESOURCE GUIDELINES continue to challenge courts to aspire to best practice,

the National Council plans to review and update the GUIDELINES in light of years of

implementation feedback from courts around the country. Through its Courts Catalyzing

Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care initiative funded by Casey Family

Programs and OJJDP, for example, the National Council will review the GUIDELINES’

best practice recommendations through a racial equity lens – focusing on helping courts

to reduce racial and ethnic disparities at all decision points in the child abuse and

neglect hearing process.



35



36

Chapter 8: Core Philosophy and Practice of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES to Support Ongoing and Future Reform Efforts – A Reminder

To support ongoing and future reform efforts, it is

important to revisit the key principles and practices of the

RESOURCE GUIDELINES.

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES has a defining vision …

Every child deserves a safe and permanent home in

the shortest time possible.

This vision continues to guide court practice in dealing with child abuse and

neglect cases across the country. The foundational principles support the vision.

RESOURCE GUIDELINES’ Foundational Principles

Avoid unnecessary separation of child and family if the child can

remain safely in the home.

Children will thrive, grow, mature, and reach their full potential when they have

a home they consider permanent. The best plan, if it can be safely implemented,

is the least restrictive environment – the child’s own home.

A child’s sense of time requires timely permanency decisions.

Research supports that a child’s development of trust and security can be

severely damaged by prolonged uncertainty in not knowing or understanding if

they will be removed from the home, or whether they will return home. The

shorter the time a child spends in foster care, separated from his or her family,

the less likely there will be prolonged damage to their development of trust and

security.



37

Juvenile and family court judges have a responsibility to provide

individual case oversight, as well as system oversight and

leadership.

The vision cannot be achieved without strong leadership from the judiciary. The role of

the juvenile and family court judge is a unique one, as it combines judicial,

administrative, collaborative, and advocacy roles. By taking on these roles, the juvenile

and family court judge holds all stakeholders, including the court, responsible to ensure

safe, timely permanency.

How does the court provide a safe and permanent home in the shortest time

possible?

Through the foundational philosophy and best practices of the

RESOURCE GUIDELINES …

One Family / One Judge – A single judge hearing all matters related to a

single family’s court experience develops a unique judicial perspective. Knowledge

gained of family circumstances and responses to court orders may increase the quality

of stakeholders’ response to family crisis.

Front-Loading the System – When adequate time is spent at the beginning

of the case to locate the whereabouts of family members, ensure proper services of

process, appoint competent representation, engage the family in voluntary crisis

intervention services, develop and implement a comprehensive case plan, and to

encourage parties to be part of the solution for their children, the overall timeframe to

permanency can be significantly reduced.

Individual Calendaring – When juvenile and family court judges control their

docket by setting hearings for specific dates and times, scheduling the amount of time

needed for specific hearings, setting future hearings at the conclusion of a hearing, and

providing written notice of the date and time of the next hearing to all parties before



38

leaving the courtroom, they show respect for everyone’s time and set the expectations

that stakeholders will be prepared for court. They also limit the number of continuances,

thus moving cases more quickly through the hearing process and shortening the time to

permanency. By doing all of these things, juvenile and family court judges also use

valuable court resources more effectively.

Frequent Court Review with Enforcement of Established Time Frames –

Juvenile and family court judges are good case managers by requiring frequent and

effective review hearings at critical time points to ensure the interim steps of the case

plan are completed in a timely fashion. Frequent court reviews help to ensure the

permanency plan will be completed within the established time frame.

Monitoring the Effectiveness of the System – Juvenile and family court

judges need to have access to court specific data in order to understand and better

monitor specific case activity as well as gain insight into the larger picture of court

performance. Data allows the juvenile and family court judges the ability to monitor

timeliness, due process, safety, and permanency, to better serve the children and

families that appear before the court.

And, critical to the successful implementation of all of the RESOURCE

GUIDELINES PRINCIPLES is ….

! Judicial Leadership

Strong judicial leadership, both on- and off-the-bench. Strong and effective leadership throughout the system.

From the bench, leadership is exercised through the judges’ understanding of the legal,

medical, and social complexities of child abuse and neglect cases and their application to

the specifics of individual cases. A judge must set clear expectations for all parties,

actively monitor cases, ask appropriate questions, use appropriate hearing time to

effectively monitor cases, and create a courtroom atmosphere of respect.



39

Off-the-bench judicial leadership can be shown by judges taking the initiative with

system partners to:xviii

! Form a local collaborative team of stakeholders to engage in systems reform;

! Evaluate the handling of child abuse and neglect cases;

! Partner with the state Court Improvement Program to effect systems reform

at the state level, including the establishment of best practices throughout

the state;

! Develop policies, standards, rules, and laws in support of system reform

efforts;

! Serve as a source of information to the community about the needs of

children and families; and

! Encourage the continuing education of the judiciary, system professionals,

and the community on issues that effect child abuse and neglect cases.

! Collaboration

Strong and effective collaborative relationships and

collaborative action among all aspects of the court

and child welfare system.

No one system serving the needs of abused and neglected children can work effectively

in a vacuum. All systems are interconnected to at least some extent and, therefore,

effective coordination and collaboration is absolutely necessary to achieve successful

systems reform. Effective collaboration among judges, child welfare professionals,

experts and community representatives is essential to identify, implement, and maintain

best practices and to effectively address specific system barriers to improve child welfare

practices and outcomes.

In order for collaboration to be effective and longstanding, stakeholders must be

allowed to have a strong voice and truthful interactions through which both trust and

mutual respect can develop among members of the collaborative. A key responsibility

for the court is taking a leadership role, bringing appropriate people to the table and



40

empowering them to participate in a collaborative effort to improve outcomes for

children and families.

System professionals must be willing to share how their specific system functions, as

well as their structural and organizational arrangements. Only through understanding

the various systems can stakeholders explore how to best implement the best practices

of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES, as well as create a culture of collaboration that

addresses system issues. It is necessary that collaborative meetings provide the

opportunity to openly and honestly discuss multiple perspectives on systems reforms,

underlying assumptions and expectations held by each collaborative partner, common

and competing systems goals, and the like.xix Before collaboration can truly become

effective, the members of the collaborative must understand the collaborative group has

to become more than the sum of its individual parts. A collaborative group develops a

group identity of its own, becoming more than a meeting of various stakeholders who

merely interact within the limits of status and turf boundaries. True collaboration

involves system partners:xx

! Engaging in a process of organizational and system learning – thus allowing

partners to deepen the level of conversation across all systems and the

community to allow for open and honest discussion of multiple perspectives

on system reforms;

! Willingness to commit their experience, expertise, energy, and authority to

moving reform efforts forward; and

! Readiness to accept a widening sphere of stakeholders who are included in

the change process, and representatives with differing levels of

organizational responsibilities.

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES are only implemented effectively when judicial leadership

uses collaborative efforts with other system experts and stakeholders. Collaboration

brings together system stakeholders to address the various system barriers to increased

permanency, timeliness, and well-being for the children and families of the child abuse

and neglect system.



41

! Education

System-wide stakeholder education regarding roles

and responsibilities, core best practices, emerging

complexities, and reform efforts.

The foundational principles and practices of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES logically lend

themselves as a strong tool for system-wide stakeholder education regarding how to

implement system reform to improve court practice in child abuse and neglect cases.

Used as an educational tool, the RESOURCE GUIDELINES lays the groundwork for why

change is necessary and how to move through the change process.

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES is an effective tool to use for system stakeholder

education that is focused on reform efforts to improve court practice in child

abuse and neglect cases. The RESOURCE GUIDELINES clarify the principles

and foundational elements on which court reform is based. Ultimately, the

GUIDELINES outline court processes that are necessary to support effective

and efficient permanency for children and families.

i The CANI was funded by the OJJDP Permanent Families Grant. Through the VAMC Grant funded by OJJDP, judges from Model Court jurisdictions have been supported to attend CANI as part of their Model Court outreach and training. Today, CANI is attended by judges from around the country and its territories through a variety of funding sources, including state Court Improvement Projects. ii The State Justice Institute (SJI) funded an adaptation of the CANI curriculum entitled: ChildAbuse and Neglect Institute: The Role of the Judge – A Curriculum Guide and Instructors’ Manual(2007). This curriculum is available on CD from www.ncjfcj.orgiii The National Council works closely with the National Center for State Courts to promote and encourage the involvement of the Conference of Chief Justices in child welfare reform efforts. iv Roush, D.W. (1996). Part I: Historical Perspective – Advent of the Juvenile Justice System. In Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice – Research Report. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C. v Permanency Planning for Children Project: 50 State Update. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV, July, 1986. vi The Juvenile Court and Serious Offenders: 38 Recommendations. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV, 1984.



42

vii “Deprived Children: A Judicial Response, 73 Recommendations” Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Vol. 37 (4), 1986. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV. viii Edwards, L.P. (1992). “The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Vol. 43(2), National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV. ixIbid, p. 25.x Hardin, M. (1992). Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning Reform: One Court that Works. American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law, Washington, D.C. xi Hardin, M. (1995). A Second Court That Works. American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law, Washington, D.C. xii The American Bar Association also played a leadership role in supporting the Adoption and Safe

Families Act (ASFA). xiii This list is not meant to be exhaustive and serves only as a snapshot of Model Court

achievements. For more detailed and comprehensive information, please review the series of Model Court Status Reports available at www.ncjfcj.orgxiv This list is not meant to be exhaustive and serves only as a snapshot of Model Court

achievements and associated outcomes. For more detailed and comprehensive information, please review the variety of specific Model Court evaluation reports and Model Court Status Report documents available at www.ncjfcj.orgxv Flango, V.E. (2001). Measuring Progress in Improving Court Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases,” Family Court Review, Volume 39, pp. 158-169. xvi American Bar Association, National Center for State Courts & National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (2004). Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. David and Lucile Packard Foundation. xvii Dobbin, S.A., Gatowski, S.I., and Maxwell, D. (2004). Building a Better Collaboration: Facilitating Change in the Court and Child Welfare System. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV. The concepts and strategies outlined in this publication are currently being developed as an off-the-bench judicial leadership curriculum. xviii Back to Basics: Fundamental Application of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES and ADOPTION AND PERMENANCY GUIDELINES in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Technical Assistance Brief, October 2006, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV. xix Building a Better Court, pg 51-52 xx Building a Better Court, pg 51-52

the resource guidelines : supporting best practices and ... rg supporting best practices... · the...

Documents